A Bright Future for the Bucks?

Almost
everything went wrong for the 2013-’14 Milwaukee Bucks. Injuries forced coach
Larry Drew to juggle lineups constantly. Center Larry Sanders, given a hefty
new contract and projected as a team leader, wrecked a thumb in a bar fight,
drew an NBA suspension for marijuana use and wound up playing only 23 games.
Several veterans acquired in the off-season didn’t justify the deals. It all
added up to 15-67, the worst record in team history.

But
the disaster led to the No. 2 pick in the league draft, and the Bucks’ choice
of Duke’s Jabari Parker has scored with fans. He’ll join a promising core of
young players including John Henson and Giannis Antetokuonmpo, the team’s
previous two first-round picks. And the franchise has new energy after being
sold by Herb Kohl to New York businessmen Marc Lasry and Wesley Edens.

The
duo say they’re committed to Milwaukee, but ultimately that depends on
replacing the BMO Harris Bradley Center, deemed inadequate by NBA standards.
Kohl and his successors have pledged $200 million toward construction of a new
arena but say public funding also is needed.

Can
the Bucks, with just two winning seasons since 2001, become a team worth
watching? And is it worth spending public money to keep them here? The Fairly
Detached Observers resurface to join the discussion...

Frank: You watched a
lot of Parker’s one-year Duke “career.” Was he the right choice?

Artie: You betcha! He’s
the real deal—probably a consistent 20-point scorer, consistent all-star, and a
genuine team player.

F: There’s a
tendency to declare every top pick a gem, since nothing has happened yet
to disprove it. Remember Joe Alexander, the first-rounder in 2008?

A: That’s really
no comparison to Parker. He has NBA size at 6-foot-8 and 235 pounds. He’s got
the shot, handles the ball well, and can play either forward spot—last season he led the ACC in rebounding.

F: The Bucks’
choice was sure to be Parker or one of the Kansas pair, Joel Embiid and Andrew
Wiggins. That narrowed when Embiid broke a foot, and the talk was that Parker
could contribute immediately on offense, Wiggins more on defense.

A: But Wiggins
needs to develop an NBA body; he’s listed at 6-8 and 197 pounds. Besides, his
shooting needs work and his ball skills are pedestrian. The Bucks got the right
guy; this team needs scoring.

F: The stats say
they need help big-time at both ends of the floor. Last season they ranked 28th
out of 30 teams in points per game (95.5), 25th in opponents’ scoring (103.7)
and 29th in scoring differential (minus-8.2). They ranked 26th in field-goal
percentage (.438)—though 19th in three-pointers (.353)—25th in opponents’
shooting (.468) and dead-last in defending treys (.382).

A: But in terms
of defense, Sanders had a really strange, nonexistent season but he still has
plenty of up-side and he’s a true center.

F: So if he gets his
head screwed on right, the defense will improve?

A: He’s a key to
this whole process. And with Henson, Antetokuonmpo, Brandon Knight, Nate Wolters
and Khris Middleton, that’s a nice foundation of young players.

F: Hey, you can
pronounce that name now: “Ahn-teh-toe-KUHN-po.”

A: It didn’t come
easy.

F: But let’s keep
calling him “G.A.” It saves space.

A: Another thing:
The Bucks made some in-season moves that paid off. They got Ramon Sessions as a
backup point guard and Jeff Adrien at power forward, and they played really
well.

A: But overall I’m
optimistic, especially over Parker. To quote from Ben Golliver on SI.com: “The
Bucks are desperate for points, hope and positive personality to rally around,
and Parker promises to bring all three.”

F:
We
can’t say the sky’s the limit yet, but to evoke the recent weather we can say
the fog is brightening. But there’s the other question: By the time the Bucks
get really, really good, might they be playing in another city?

A: Their Bradley
Center lease ends on Sept. 30, 2017. If there’s no new arena in the works soon,
the NBA and the new owners will look elsewhere for sure.

F: We say the
ownership, old and new, the NBA and the corporate big shots pushing for a new
arena are plenty rich enough to foot the bill themselves. With all the city’s
crucial needs for funding—schools, roads,
public health—there should be no public money going into an arena.

MORE
ON ARENA ISSUES

F: A few weeks
ago I discovered, to my amazement, that we actually agree with Charlie
Sykes about something! It was in the midst of all this L.A. Clippers
controversy, and I heard Sykes say on the air something like: A team just sold
for $2 billion, and this is an industry that needs public assistance?

A: Wow, I would
have thought Charlie would just keep sticking up for the rich folks. Maybe he’d
feel different if the Koch brothers got involved with the Bucks.

F: But for now he
and we are united, uncomfortable though it may be for all three of us.

A: I’m feeling a
little strange for sure.

F: The first
point we’ve always made on the arena issue is that the Bradley Center, at
not-quite 26 years old, is not decrepit or outmoded—except by NBA
standards.

A: Which ain’t
the standards of average folks.

F: We’ve said it
many times before: What does Joe or Joanne Fan want in an arena? Reasonably
affordable prices, a decent view of the court, quick service for refreshments
and quick access to bathrooms. Oh yeah, and a reasonably entertaining product.

A: Well, the
product wasn’t much to look at last season, but the BC has all those other
things.

F: Besides that,
does the BC have suites? Yes. Does it have a fancy-dancy club for the courtside
crowd? Yes, under the stands in the southwest corner of the building. Does it
have a nice club for group seating and socializing? Yes, at the north end of
the lower bowl.

A: So what do the
arena backers want?

F: Well, I’ll
tell you what they never say: “We want to create more affordable seating
closer to the court for the typical fan with a family.” Hell no! What they
always talk about is more “club seating” with waiter service, more and better
suites, more restaurants in the building...

A: So they can
charge more for all of it.

F: Before the
soccer World Cup, one of the network news shows did a piece on the enormous
disparity between the poverty of many Brazilians and the government spending on
new stadiums. A slum-dweller, who of course loves soccer but has no chance of
actually seeing a game, was asked what this told him. He replied, “This is not
for you.” I’d say the same sentence applies for average Bucks fans when we’re
talking about the reasons for building a new arena.

A: It’s the fat
cats and corporate big shots who’ll enjoy the expensive do-dads. Joe and Joanne
and the kids will still be upstairs—but at higher ticket prices, of course.

F: One of the new
co-owners, Marc Lasry, was in town recently and said he envisioned a new arena
of 16,000 to 18,000 seats, with more of them in the lower bowl than at the
Bradley Center. It’s true that the privately-financed BC is top-heavy, built
primarily with hockey in mind, and some of the basketball sight lines in the
lower bowl aren’t too good. But what do you suppose those more-numerous seats
downstairs will cost?

A: Even if they
held the line at first, they’d be way expensive. Four years ago, when we
sat deep in the corner of the lower bowl for a Bucks game, those tickets had a
face value of 70 bucks or so, ain’a?

F: You bet. The
same thing happened with the new Yankee Stadium. It has fewer upper-deck seats
than the old one had, which just makes it tougher to find affordable prices.

A: Well, I’m
happy to watch the games on TV.

F: What’s more
affordable, and gives a better view of the game? Sitting on the couch in front
of the wide-screen high-def or sitting upstairs in an arena—any arena?
Yeah, there’s something to be said for the energy of a live crowd, and if the
Bucks get good of course attendance will perk up. But that would happen
anywhere even at the supposedly decrepit Bradley Center.

A: Lasry
projected the arena cost at $350 million to $400 million, but that will
undoubtedly rise because costs always do. Kohl and the new guys have promised
to kick in $200 million.

F: But why not
more? In selling the team for $550 million, the ex-senator made a profit of
over $500 million on his original investment. So why not pledge $300 million of
that? He cares deeply about the Bucks and keeping them here, and really, how
much money does he need for a very comfortable life? And why not $200 million
from the new partners, including the additional investors who are expected to
be announced soon? And what about a loan from the NBA, which is rolling in
dough and claims to want to keep the team here?

A: Isn’t one
argument that the arena won’t be just for the Bucks, just hosting 41 dates a
year? There’ll presumably be Marquette games, Admirals hockey, concerts,
conventions, tractor pulls, whatever...

F: Absolutely
true, but my response to that is still, who’s going to be making the big dough?
The new owners talk about wanting a “partnership” with the city and state. But
who’ll take the profits from a new arena? Yeah, there’ll be some tax revenue,
but who’ll cash in when the team gets sold next?

A: As it
undoubtedly will someday.

F: Say there’s a
new arena, built with some public money, and down the road these guys decide to
cash in. The team’s value already has increased, thanks to the ridiculous price
for the Clippers. So what’ll it be with a new arena, $750 million or more? Who’s
gonna walk away with the profits?

A: Another
argument is that a new arena will be a job-creator.

F: What kind of
jobs? Low-paying, part-time, seasonal? Many of the claims about the economic
impact of sports franchises are based on a false premise—that there’d be no
alternatives for spending and jobs if the team was gone. It’s not like people
have only two choices: Spend money on sports events or tuck it under their
mattresses!

A: On the other
hand, if people are spending more and more on sports tickets and fancy
restaurants in an arena, they’re probably cutting back on other recreational
spending. Not too many people are made of money!

F: If I owned
Major Goolsby’s or Buck Bradley’s, I wouldn’t be too keen on having potential
customers doing their pre-game drinking and eating inside the arena.

A: Another
pro-arena argument is that public money, in the form of a tiny but long-lasting
sales tax, went into and still is going into paying for Miller Park.

F: I know I’m
guilty of hypocrisy because I was all for whatever it took to keep the
Brewers. But I would argue that there’s a quantitative difference between the
impact of baseball and basketball—twice the number of dates and usually far
more people at any given Brewers game. Also, more out-of-town fans who’ll stay
for several days to see a whole series.

A: There was also
a huge difference between the existing baseball facility in the 1990s
and the Bradley Center today.

F: County Stadium
was more than 40 years old, cramped and completely outmoded, and I just don’t
see that with the BC—at least for the average fan.

A: There’s no
doubt that it needs more spending on maintenance and repairs as it gets older.

F: Sure, but the
figures you see quoted—$40 million, $50 million—are spread over several years.
Repairs are needed? So make ’em.

A: Another
selling point is that a new arena would be the centerpiece of a vibrant new
area of shops and hotels and restaurants, like in Indianapolis or Cleveland.

F: My question
about that would be, how much money do you think the community has available to
spend at up-scale eateries and sports bars and trendy stores?

A: I sure don’t
have much to contribute there.

F: I think there’s
enough determination, or maybe desperation, in the business community that this
new arena will get done. All we’re saying is that it should be done
without public money! Let the big shots who’ll enjoy the amenities and make the
profits foot the bill.

MORE
ON THE TEAM

A: Andrew Sharp
on Grantland.com had this to say after the draft:

“In
six months the Bucks have gone from one of the most depressing teams... and the
best candidate to relocate, to a team that has as bright a future as anybody in
the East. They still need a point guard, but that can be handled down the line.
Finding Parker and Antetokounmpo was a much bigger deal.”

And
about Parker specifically:

“This
is so much better than Cleveland for Parker. With the Cavs he would’ve been
surrounded by bad defense, exacerbating his own issues on that end, and then
stuck playing the 3 on offense. With the Bucks, he’s got guys like Larry
Sanders, John Henson and Giannis Antetokounmpo, all of whom will help cover him
on defense.

“On
offense, he’ll be able to play plenty of stretch 4, exploiting mismatches. His
offense will help compensate for all the things Antetokounmpo, Sanders, and
Henson don’t do.

“It’s
just a perfect pick.”

F: Now, about
that point-guard comment. Isn’t that why they got Brandon Knight when they
swapped Brandon Jennings for him? Now I’m seeing stuff about how Knight is
really more of a shooting guard.

A: That’s not
really different from what was being said last year. Yeah, Knight isn’t a “pure”
point guard like, say, a Chris Paul. But these days it’s like most teams have
two starting guards and they both can play either role, distributing or
shooting.

F: But they have to
work together, as Jennings and Monta Ellis did not.

A: The roster is
forward-heavy, so I think there’ll be some moves as the season approaches. But
I sure hope they don’t throw Knight into any deal because he could be really,
really good.

F: And a deal can
turn out really, really bad. It’s been a pattern for the Bucks in recent years,
bringing in the WRONG veterans, either because of declining skills or bad
chemistry. Guys like Corey Maggette, Stephen Jackson and John Salmons...

A: Except for the
initial stretch in 2010 where he earned himself a fat contract. Then he
tanked.

F: Right now at
guard they have Knight, Sessions, Wolters...

A: Mayo is still
there, although I hope not for long. And Carlos Delfino—assuming he’s really
past the foot trouble that kept him out all of last season—is one of those “2
or 3” guys who can play small forward too.

F: And the roster
on NBA.com even lists G.A. as a shooting guard, at 6-foot-9…

A: Who now,
apparently, has grown to 6-foot-11. These days lots of guys can and do play
different spots depending on the matchups and game situations.

F: Which makes it
all the more important for a guy like Parker to be able to handle the ball
well...

A: Which he
certainly can.

F: Speaking of “moves,”
the Journal Sentinel reported Sunday
that the new owners might bring in Jason Kidd as their top basketball executive
or coach, or perhaps both. Kidd, after his rookie season as an NBA coach, reportedly
wanted what the paper called “total control” of the Nets’ basketball operations
but was turned down by the Brooklyn ownership.

A: Kinda nervy
for a guy whose entire coaching resume reads 44-38, sixth place in the East and
1-1 in playoff series. But whoever winds up running the show, the guys on the
court make me darn optimistic.

Frank
Clines covered sports for The Milwaukee Journal
and the Journal Sentinel. Art Kumbalek is always working on his shot.

Poll

A Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission panel upheld the firing of former Milwaukee Police officer Christopher Manney for violating department rules last April when he encountered Dontre Hamilton before fatally shooting him. Do you agree with the commission’s decision?